Talk:Special Troops Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (United States)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • My main concern in that the History section seems padded with excess information about other brigades, while leaving out some information about the 1st Brigade. For example, the first paragraph of the History section discusses the brigade's work in WWII, then at the beginning of the second paragraph you say "Upon the return of the division headquarters and 1st Brigade" and start discussing the transformation, which was completed in late 2004. This makes it sound like they returned from WWII and began an almost 50 year transformation process. I'm assuming you mean that they returned from Operation Enduring Freedom, but this operation isn't even mentioned in the body of the article. However, the entire third paragraph has nothing to do with the 1st Brigade, as far as I can tell, and instead discusses the division HQ and 3rd Brigade, neither of which are the subject of this article. There needs to be more of a focus on the subject of the article, and less ancillary information about other brigades in the division.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • See comments in prose/MOS section above.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall a nice article, but I have some concerns with the focusing of the content, so I am placing this review on hold until the issues can be addressed. If you have any questions, please let me know. Dana boomer (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for a thorough review. I am inclined to agree with it, and I have removed the paragraph unrelated to the battalion. However, I now feel that the article isn't long or comprehensive enough to be a GA, and I can't find many good sources to add detail to it. Therefore, I would like to request to close the GA review, as it needs a lot more work, which I currently do not have the time or resources to do. —Ed!^(talk) 01:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As you wish. I look forward to seeing this article back at GAN after you find the time and resources :) Good luck! Dana boomer (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)